Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29871710›Full record

ArticleAnimal : an international journal of animal bioscience2019

Indirect genetic effect model using feeding behaviour traits to define the degree of interaction between mates: an implementation in pigs growth rate.

M Ragab, M Piles, R Quintanilla, J P Sánchez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Phenomes: the current frontier in animal breeding.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M Ragab1Genetica i Millora Animal,Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA),Torre Marimon s/n,Caldes de Montbui,Barcelona, 08140,Spain.
M Piles1Genetica i Millora Animal,Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA),Torre Marimon s/n,Caldes de Montbui,Barcelona, 08140,Spain.
R Quintanilla1Genetica i Millora Animal,Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA),Torre Marimon s/n,Caldes de Montbui,Barcelona, 08140,Spain.
J P Sánchez1Genetica i Millora Animal,Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA),Torre Marimon s/n,Caldes de Montbui,Barcelona, 08140,Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8639-6146

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An alternative implementation of the animal model including indirect genetic effect (IGE) is presented considering pair-mate-specific interaction degrees to improve the performance of the model. Data consisted of average daily gain (ADG) records from 663 pigs kept in groups of 10 to 14 mates during the fattening period. Three types of models were used to fit ADG data: (i) animal model (AM); (ii) AM with classical IGE (AM-IGE); and (iii) AM fitting IGE with a specific degree of interaction between each pair of mates (AM-IGEi). Several feeding behavior phenotypes were used to define the pair-mate-specific degree of interaction in AM-IGEi: feeding rate (g/min), feeding frequency (min/day), the time between consecutive visits to the feeder (min/day), occupation time (min/day) and an index considering all these variables. All models included systematic effects batch, initial age (covariate), final age (covariate), number of pigs per pen (covariate), plus the random effect of the pen. Estimated posterior mean (posterior SD) of heritability was 0.47 (0.15) using AM. Including social genetic effects in the model, total heritable variance expressed as a proportion of total phenotypic variance (T 2) was 0.54 (0.29) using AM-IGE, whereas it ranged from 0.51 to 0.55 (0.12 to 0.14) with AM-IGEi, depending on the behavior trait used to define social interactions. These results confirm the contribution of IGEs to the total heritable variation of ADG. Moreover, important differences between models were observed in EBV rankings. The percentage of coincidence of top 10% animals between AM and AM-IGEi ranged from 0.44 to 0.89 and from 0.41to 0.68 between AM-IGE and AM-IGEi. Based on the goodness of fit and predictive ability, social models are preferred for the genetic evaluation of ADG. Among models including IGEs, when the pair-specific degree of interaction was defined using feeding behavior phenotypes we obtained an increase in the accuracy of genetic parameters estimates, the better goodness of fit and higher predictive ability. We conclude that feeding behavior variables can be used to measure the interaction between pen mates and to improve the performance of models including IGEs.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorAnimalsFemaleInterpersonal RelationsMaleModels, GeneticPhenotypeSwineanimal welfarefeeding behaviorgenetic parametersgenetic selectionsocial interactions

Identifiers

PMID29871710
PMCPMC6340105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.